I was being analytical of the learning/parenting process. Doesn't matter to me where the articles come from as long as the tests are legit; on such political issues, at least in my personal experience, I can't find thorough articles that are not related somehow to a religious group (including atheists/agnostics) or a political group. The article itself that portrays the data is limited to public view, this was the only site I could find that had a large portion of the studies online. That was my attempt to be fair; I was a bit hopeful of people to ignore any external factors.

So for being picky about people being raised by other people; now, I do not mean to discriminate strictly based on ethnic groups, but it is seen worldwide that people of the same culture or religion will gather together. Putting aside any thought of conspiracy, I would think this is a large factor in why you can see, essentially in early American history, groups of people from the same nationality forming their own towns inside a larger group. America is interesting (I am Austrian-Irish) as it shows a kind of diversity, yet separation at the same time, as you will travel throughout some parts of a state and find neighborhoods with Cherokes living close to each other, Italians living close to each other, so on so forth, though all will identify as Americans. Still, my point is that people of close biological traits tend to relate easily and soothed in the company of their groups. Interestingly, there is no 'race gene' that says "You are Italian," but there are traits that will occur frequently in certain places of the globe, which is majorly just natural selection over time.
I mean to say that birds of a feather flock together, colts learn to snake mares by watching stallions, and mares learn to mother by watching other mares; advanced needs are less complicated that way. For example, a woman of major Egyptian descent looks quite different than a woman of Norwegian descent. Giving to people's inclination to consider encounters at face value strictly, a person of Japanese descent won't know the difference between a man or woman of the bloodlines--- if you look only at the face of many different people worldwide, it can be difficult to figure out the gender and age. To a person outside those bloodlines, all they can go by is the person's word of mouth to identify their age, gender, and nationality when they have not seen people of those categories. So, now nobody really knows what a man or woman looks like, and clothes aren't much of a help as outfits vary widely.

The ability to identify our own members of the same species is detoriating--- and when you think about it, our ability to recognize subtle facial expressions and vocal intonations is as well thanks to electronic communications. I don't quite see such an appeal on announcing yourself to strictly relate romantically to one gender, or rather, the traits of that gender, because you do have masculine women of all orientations and the reverse as well. I don't think it's the gender that people are focusing on deeply, but the traits they believe are associated (for example, five gays I have met over the course of three months only engaged in relationships with men with at least three obvious traits in common such as face shape and body build). That there is an observation, though, nothing to really go off solely, as you do have preferences, but on several occassions when I introduced a gay friend to women with broad shoulders, he stopped dating altogether and spent time with the women instead. I can say of that, at a minimum, he was pleased with their bodily appearance.

So with parenting, I would want parents to raise a child in a widespread education. Of course in the situation of a child being dragged through a murky broken home or being re-homed to a person with a steady job and lifestyle who happens to be homo, the child goes to the homosexual. No group is immune from the same problems. If there's a person of sound mind, go ahead, I just wouldn't put a child from a broken home in a household where the parents are biased, whatever their lifestyle and belief is. Anybody who has had a shelter Pit Bull from a dogfighting past knows that the dog does not go to someone who will only pour love and kisses on it. Love and kisses do not keep the dog from ripping apart living beings, it is hard for me to hear someone say "as long as you love me/him/her/them," because you can love someone with all your heart, but being with you might not be best for that person. It takes more than love to raise a child, dog, cat, horse, et cetera. There are plenty of situations where people are in poverty trying to care for their children. If you gave these people the choice between holding onto their child, or giving the child to a rich boarding school where they probably would be indoctrinated but well cared for... You know the outcome, and this has happened in history all over the globe, poor people handing off their children in hopes of their children being cared for better. Then there are the times where mothers have thrown their children off cliffs and dove in with them to avoid the shame of surrendering to the enemy nation, but, that's the darker side of this point.

Speed; spectacular debacle. I haven't heard "psychobabble" in a while, not since Wedding Crashers. I can't tell exactly what you were remarking on, whether it was my meaning or my word choice.

Well, I'll take a tiny step. You are helping me with analyzing practice, thank you, though I wanted to stay on topic.

There is more than one definition of "bitter"; I meant "unpleasant to reception". That's a matter of tone and diction; you were so serious, I believed you could choose another theme of diction. I apologize for this mistake, it's hard to decipher meanings from colloquialisms. Usually it is appropriate to gently state an opinion of a hot topic. It is also appropriate to slap a smiley face on the end of it when using the internet, for lack of a face.

Sadly you did not prove me wrong. I praise you for paragraph spacings though, your generous sharing of commas and verbals were customary but relevant to your own points. More of a descriptive anecdote and a bit of explanation to the use of harsh words such as "hate" would improve the structure. Overall it was skeletal, I suggest to weigh future remarks with irrefutable claims and citations next time.

No offense intended, but I always get a chuckle when someone that authors a post like yours criticizes someone else's structure, syntax, and punctuation. If I could spare the lengthy time it would take to edit your post, the result would be more red than black. We write in informal conversational style here, which is appropriate for this venue...it is also much easier to read then a failed bush league attempt to appear educated...again - no offense intended...

I was being analytical of the learning/parenting process. Doesn't matter to me where the articles come from as long as the tests are legit; on such political issues, at least in my personal experience, I can't find thorough articles that are not related somehow to a religious group (including atheists/agnostics) or a political group. The article itself that portrays the data is limited to public view, this was the only site I could find that had a large portion of the studies online. That was my attempt to be fair; I was a bit hopeful of people to ignore any external factors.

How is this article "legit" by any means. It's published by people who a right wing on EVERY political issue? If you publish things like this then OF COURSE people are going to see it and start voting against thing like this, if they are naive enough to believe this. A organization like the American Psychological Association are NOT going to have biases towards one side or the other!

So for being picky about people being raised by other people; now, I do not mean to discriminate strictly based on ethnic groups, but it is seen worldwide that people of the same culture or religion will gather together. yes, but culture and religion is something your born into! If a baby is adopted from China to American parents they are going have an American culture and a western religion. Parents might opt for the kid to learn about Chinese culture, but they are american through and through Putting aside any thought of conspiracy, I would think this is a large factor in why you can see, essentially in early American history, groups of people from the same nationality forming their own towns inside a larger group. America is interesting (I am Austrian-Irish) as it shows a kind of diversity, yet separation at the same time, as you will travel throughout some parts of a state and find neighborhoods with Cherokes living close to each other, Italians living close to each other, so on so forth, though all will identify as Americans. Still, my point is that people of close biological traits tend to relate easily and soothed in the company of their groups. Interestingly, there is no 'race gene' that says "You are Italian," but there are traits that will occur frequently in certain places of the globe, which is majorly just natural selection over time.
I mean to say that birds of a feather flock together, colts learn to snake mares by watching stallions, and mares learn to mother by watching other mares; advanced needs are less complicated that way. Really? Because how many domesticated horses grow up in a herd situation? With mares and stallions? They turn out to be fine mothers or have no problem covering a mare. A lot of that stuff is instinct and comes from trial and error.For example, a woman of major Egyptian descent looks quite different than a woman of Norwegian descent. Giving to people's inclination to consider encounters at face value strictly, a person of Japanese descent won't know the difference between a man or woman of the bloodlines--- if you look only at the face of many different people worldwide, it can be difficult to figure out the gender and age. To a person outside those bloodlines, all they can go by is the person's word of mouth to identify their age, gender, and nationality when they have not seen people of those categories. So, now nobody really knows what a man or woman looks like, and clothes aren't much of a help as outfits vary widely. What does that have to do with homosexual parenting?!

The ability to identify our own members of the same species is detoriating--- and when you think about it, our ability to recognize subtle facial expressions and vocal intonations is as well thanks to electronic communications. I totally agree electronic communication has diluted people social abilities but, again what does this have to do with homosexual parenting?I don't quite see such an appeal on announcing yourself to strictly relate romantically to one gender, or rather, the traits of that gender, because you do have masculine women of all orientations and the reverse as well. I don't think it's the gender that people are focusing on deeply, but the traits they believe are associated (for example, five gays I have met over the course of three months only engaged in relationships with men with at least three obvious traits in common such as face shape and body build). That there is an observation, though, nothing to really go off solely, as you do have preferences, but on several occassions when I introduced a gay friend to women with broad shoulders, he stopped dating altogether and spent time with the women instead. I can say of that, at a minimum, he was pleased with their bodily appearance. Really, where are you from. As a member of a LARGE gay community I can tell you that if your experience are correct for everyone there would be no gay people left on Long Island and NYC. I've been to every gay/lesbian bar from NYC to Montauk. Both genders gather frequently and if that actually worked then there would be no more gay people left. We would have all "stopped dating altogether and spent time with the women/men instead". Liking someone is not biased on body type. It's biased on emotional connection. I am emotionally and physically attracted to women. Plain and simple. I've been around the more feminine men and never not ONCE have ever entertained the idea of being attracted to them. Just like heterosexuals, homosexuals can attracted to someone who is "rougher" or "softer" then them, it has nothing to do with gender as both genders can be "rougher" or "softer"

So with parenting, I would want parents to raise a child in a widespread education. Of course in the situation of a child being dragged through a murky broken home or being re-homed to a person with a steady job and lifestyle who happens to be homo, the child goes to the homosexual. No group is immune from the same problems. If there's a person of sound mind, go ahead, I just wouldn't put a child from a broken home in a household where the parents are biased, whatever their lifestyle and belief is. Anybody who has had a shelter Pit Bull from a dogfighting past knows that the dog does not go to someone who will only pour love and kisses on it. Love and kisses do not keep the dog from ripping apart living beings, it is hard for me to hear someone say "as long as you love me/him/her/them," because you can love someone with all your heart, but being with you might not be best for that person. It takes more than love to raise a child, dog, cat, horse, et cetera. There are plenty of situations where people are in poverty trying to care for their children. If you gave these people the choice between holding onto their child, or giving the child to a rich boarding school where they probably would be indoctrinated but well cared for... You know the outcome, and this has happened in history all over the globe, poor people handing off their children in hopes of their children being cared for better. Then there are the times where mothers have thrown their children off cliffs and dove in with them to avoid the shame of surrendering to the enemy nation, but, that's the darker side of this point. Again, not sure what giving your child up because your poor has to do with homosexual parenting? All we can proved is love and no other parenting skill?

Here is some interesting material published by the APA, a NON BIAS organization that is running off facts not faith. It's not an article (actually I'm not 100% sure what you would call it), but it looks like facts on why the Ohio Psychological Association found homosexual up to par with heterosexuals. It even mentions that homosexuals might be superior parent-ers to children!

"Second, beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002). Lesbian and heterosexual women have not been found to differ markedly in their approaches to child rearing (Patterson, 2000; Tasker, 1999). Members of gay and lesbian couples with children have been found to divide the work involved in childcare evenly, and to be satisfied with their relationships with their partners (Patterson, 2000, 2004a). The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers' and gay fathers' parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual parents. There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation (Armesto, 2002; Patterson, 2000; Tasker & Golombok, 1997). On the contrary, results of research suggest that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children."

I'll be honest, I love to read a good debate. I'm not going to go over my qualifications, or education, I'll just note a few things.

Who in their right mind takes the time to cite (at least more than once) a post on the internet? My god, you'd better be paying me, giving me a grade, or seriously have pissed me off. I've done so in threads regarding Evolution versus someone who completely denigrated science...but I don't see a problem with Speed Racer not doing it here. She and I may not always agree, but I'll back her up on that. What was she going to cite, after all? Lol I don't disagree that she tends to snap a bit...we all have done so. Though I do praise you for noting her good use of grammar and punctuation. Not everyone takes the time to utilize it, or notice when someone is skilled in doing it. ;)

Now...about the rest of your post. I don't know where to start. I do not agree with natural selection being the driving force behind "ethnicities". Microevolution at its finest is behind the "look" of our "races". It certainly isn't the case that they had a party at the Bering Strait, and said "Hey, you, you and you are darker tan and have silky asian hair, but no folds...you cross the straight. You look blond, you go that way with the other blondes with blue eyes...". =/ And furthermore, I'm assuming that though you have been to America, maybe you were caught up in visiting and did not notice, depending on where you were, the true diversity of our melting pot. Though there are many places where the interracial marriage is not so common, I'm from California. I am descendant of four races. My daughter is from eight. My husband is a newly made American citizen, born in Mexico. He is also a Christian, to my very strong belief in Atheism and a hint of Buddhism. My kids (of mixed heritage) can decide on religion when they're ready. Furthermore, I'm told I'm pansexual...my husband is straight. I don't see how my sexuality even remotely impacts my kids, and honestly I can't even see them asking about it? Lol. Furthermore, they can decide on that as they get older too.

Oh and if you think that every parent (not saying you do) in a poverty situation will send their kids to an expensive boarding school, away from them to become indoctrinated, even for a chance at better education....you haven't talked to enough people. XD

I wanted to inquire as to whether English is your first language. I note that there is some difficulty/awkwardness in phrasing, and that made it somewhat difficult to follow (though that may have also been the toddler "playing" in the background). I have fantastic reading comprehension, and I am not trying to insult you, but I thought you may like to know that it wasn't super easy to follow and see what you were getting at.

. Really, where are you from. As a member of a LARGE gay community I can tell you that if your experience are correct for everyone there would be no gay people left on Long Island and NYC. I've been to every gay/lesbian bar from NYC to Montauk. Both genders gather frequently and if that actually worked then there would be no more gay people left. We would have all "stopped dating altogether and spent time with the women/men instead". Liking someone is not biased on body type. It's biased on emotional connection. I am emotionally and physically attracted to women. Plain and simple. I've been around the more feminine men and never not ONCE have ever entertained the idea of being attracted to them. Just like heterosexuals, homosexuals can attracted to someone who is "rougher" or "softer" then them, it has nothing to do with gender as both genders can be "rougher" or "softer"

If that were so, then the physical gender of the individual would not be a factor.

Way to go Faceman I agree 100%.
I am an educated man and did not quite understand most of the OPs reply or how it is relevant to the topic of this thread.
There is NO evidence that same sex parents are inferior to traditional ones. NONE. Quite the opposite has been proven in study after study. Shalom

If you gave these people the choice between holding onto their child, or giving the child to a rich boarding school where they probably would be indoctrinated but well cared for... You know the outcome, and this has happened in history all over the globe, poor people handing off their children in hopes of their children being cared for better.

Wow, OP your reply was long, detailed, mainly off-topic I think, and I could seize any part of it to have a friendly debate on. But I'll stick with this bit - on what planet are you living where you think that "poor people" will give up their children easily in favour of a rich and privileged education?! I don't think I know ANY parent that would "give their children up" willingly. A parent who sends their child away from a war zone, or from other social ills does so to protect them and does so with agony. Every Time.

People who do send their children to boarding schools do so for many reasons, but not to give them up.

Oh, and while I'm at it - in what part of history do mothers and children dive off cliffs? And WHAT does this have to do with homosexual parenting?

If that were so, then the physical gender of the individual would not be a factor.

I ment to say emotionally and physically, the next sentence says it. Also by "body type" I was referring to the person, male or females, degree of femininity or masculinity. The OPs argument is pretty much give a lesbian a feminine man or give a gay man a masculine women and problem solved. Yeah, I've never ever seen that become true, nor is the stereotype "bitch women like femme girls" and visa versa for "type" and gender.Posted via Mobile Device

Wall of text, and much of it completely irrelevant to the topic. Typical bloviating obfuscation intended to throw attention away from the actual discussion and onto the OP.

I find the OP's opinions on the actual topic puzzling, considering that she claims to be 17 y/o and still living at home with a completely dysfunctional family. Her pronouncements of being the only normal member of the family and being the glue that holds everyone together seem eerily reminiscent of another poster who has been banned for her lies and wild flights of fancy. The grammar, syntax and walls of text also appear to be similar, if not downright exact.

OP is obviously intelligent, but appears to have a sad need to be right in every and all situations. Those traits are not desirable when one is looking to debate, but they're certainly endemic to those who wish to appear superior to their fellows.

I'd say her character flaws are most likely related to her horrific upbringing, and she would have been better off had she been brought up by loving, same sex parents than the mismatched, damaged biological ones who actually raised her. A mentally healthy single parent would have also been preferable to a mentally ill pair.

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the The Horse Forum forums, you must first register.

Already have a Horse Forum account?
Members are allowed only one account per person at the Horse Forum, so if you've made an account here in the past you'll need to continue using that account. Please do not create a new account or you may lose access to the Horse Forum. If you need help recovering your existing account, please Contact Us. We'll be glad to help!

New to the Horse Forum?Please choose a username you will be satisfied with using for the duration of your membership at the Horse Forum. We do not change members' usernames upon request because that would make it difficult for everyone to keep track of who is who on the forum. For that reason, please do not incorporate your horse's name into your username so that you are not stuck with a username related to a horse you may no longer have some day, or use any other username you may no longer identify with or care for in the future.

User Name:

Password

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:

Confirm Password:

Email Address

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:

Log-in

User Name

Remember Me?

Password

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

Old Thread Warning

This thread is more than 90 days old. When a thread is this old, it is often better to start a new thread rather than post to it. However, If you feel you have something of value to add to this particular thread, you can do so by checking the box below before submitting your post.I am aware that this is an old thread and I want to revive it rather than starting a new thread.